The priorities set by the Maltese government to define its six month stint at the Presidency of the EU, starting this January, are worthwhile and realistic.

They reflect the circumstances that we experience while living in the centre of the Mediterranean, without getting high on the illusion that with its role at the presidency, Malta will surely be able to affect events in a big way. It still makes sense to try.

This should be done without ignoring the state of great uncertainty that Europe finds itself in at present, so that unforeseen developments could emerge overnight. Nor can one ignore the agendas that have been piling up for action about which there has been a lack of agreement among European leaders.

In this context the scope for introducing new priorities is extremely limited.

It would have been a mistake had the Malta government failed to bring forward the Mediterranean scenario in its project for the presidency. That this was done with care and prudence will provide a better leeway within which to insist on it, should the right opportunity arise.

Actually such opportunity might be even more restricted than we now presume.

***

Financial services

In coming months, even if the EU maintains its current operating lethargy, one big initiative will remain upfront no matter what happens.

What needs to be done to reverse the tax evasion that with the continuing globalisation, has accelerated in recent years on the part of the big multinationals and rich individuals?

On both the left and right of traditional politics, there is every incentive to steam ahead on this issue. It is one which attracts huge popular support.

At the European Parliament, the so-called Panama committee is investigating measures which could be introduced to control the ongoing abuses.

Here in Malta, like ostriches, we have focussed too much on the affair of Panama companies set up by Mizzi/Schembri.

However the real problem is how the changes that are being prospected will affect our financial services sector. 

***

Paceville

I am one of those who fail to understand the rationale behind the plan for Paceville.

It seems as if somebody decided to increase the stock of rather overblown controversies that are already current. I doubt whether even a quarter of the plan’s proposals have any likelihood of ever being implemented. For in it, the realities of existing buildings, residents and land values have been almost completely overlooked.

More than a century and a half ago, Baron Haussmann did likewise when he designed and built the big Parisian boulevards. The arteries he laid out changed greatly the layout of that city, deeply altered its character, and made it what it is today.

With due respect, I doubt whether Haussmann’s strategy can be applied to Paceville! At the end of the day, even Haussmann ended up in disgrace. His projects led to monumental public expenditures which were incurred in the absence of serious financial controls.